What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

EDITORIAL 1: Removing a minister

Context

Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday introduced in Lok Sabha a significant constitutional amendment that seeks to remove a central or state Minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively.

What does the amendment propose?

• The Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 and two related statutory amendments to reflect the proposed changes for Union Territories have been referred to a joint committee of Parliament for review.
• The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which deal with the Union Council of Ministers, Council of Ministers in the states, and Ministers in Union Territories respectively.
• A new clause will state that any Minister arrested and held in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with five years or more in prison will be removed from office by the President on the Prime Minister’s advice on the 31st day.
• The removal can be reversed when the Minister is released from custody. Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister will be in the ambit of the proposed law.
• The constitutional amendment will require a majority of two-thirds of Members present and voting to be passed.

The current legal framework

• Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences, and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years.
• The proposed amendment deals with the removal of a Minister after having spent a certain time in custody.
• Ministers do not have qualifications that are distinct from those of legislators, but they have different responsibilities.
• In the RPA, the yardstick for disqualification is conviction by a court.The disqualification can be stayed if the conviction is stayed by a higher court on appeal.
• India’s constitutional scheme envisages the presumption of innocence for the accused, and puts the onus of proving the charges on the prosecution.
• Police file a chargesheet within 90 days of arrest, after which a court frames the charges. Trial begins after that, and can end in acquittal or conviction.
• In the proposed Bill, the yardstick for removal is 30 consecutive days of being arrested and detained in custody.
• Since arrest and detention are only the  preliminary step in a criminal investigation, such a yardstick raises serious questions of due process.

The debate

• It has been argued that the long wait for conviction defeats the purpose of disqualification.
• However, constitutional principles of natural justice require a person to be given a fair opportunity to be heard before consequential action is taken against them.
• Also, disqualification impacts not only the rights of the legislator but also the will of the people who have elected the legislator.
• In its 170th report in 1999, the Law Commission of India proposed that the framing of a charge for offences punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment should be made an additional ground for disqualification, which should be for five years or until acquittal, whichever was earlier.
• The Law Commission’s 2014 report recommended that a legislator could be disqualified when charges were framed against them by a court, since this showed prima facie judicial satisfaction that there existed sufficient material against a person to put them to trial.

Supreme Court on Disqualification of Legislators

• A five-judge Bench in a 2018 judgment ruled that the power to disqualify legislators lies solely with Parliament and the court cannot add new grounds.
• However, it urged Parliament to enact a strong law mandating political parties to revoke membership and deny tickets to candidates facing serious criminal charges.
• In Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014), the Court said there is no legal bar on appointing ministers with criminal backgrounds but advised the Prime Minister to avoid such appointments, especially in serious or corruption cases.
• Case of V. Senthil Balaji (2023–2025):After 14 months in custody for alleged money laundering, Balaji was granted bail and reappointed as minister. The SC later said it was misled, as he had resigned before bail. It told him to choose between freedom or office. Balaji resigned, and bail was upheld.
• Case of Arvind Kejriwal (2024–2025):Granted bail in a money laundering case, the SC restricted his official powers but left resignation to his discretion. He resigned voluntarily after regular bail was granted.

Conclusion

The amendment aims to ensure cleaner governance by removing Ministers held in custody for serious offences. While it addresses delays in conviction, it raises concerns about due process and the presumption of innocence.

 

EDITORIAL 2: After Wang Yi’s visit, take a stock of India-China bilateral ties

Context

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to India was the first ministerial visit from China since the two countries decided last October to disengage at the border.

India, China in last 6 yrs

• In October 2019, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi met in Mahabalipuram for their second informal summit.
• Just eight months later, the situation had changed dramatically. Indian and Chinese troops clashed violently in Galwan in eastern Ladakh.
• There was a rupture in ties, and India amassed 50,000-60,000 troops on the Line of Actual Control to match with the similar numbers on the Chinese side.
• Over the years that followed, the two armies remained eyeball-to-eyeball at multiple places, and there were reports of confrontations and pictures and reports of infrastructure-building on both sides.
• On October 21, the two sides agreed to complete the disengagement process in the last two remaining locations in Depsang and Demchok. President Xi and PM Modi met in Kazan on October 23 and decided to mend ties.
• Since then, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri have all travelled to China.

Twin-track movement

• The two sides have agreed to move forward on two fronts — border issues and bilateral ties — without allowing one to impact the other.
• The parallel engagement was agreed upon after the 1988 visit of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to China, and had been followed until 2020.
• In the dual-track strategy adopted now, India and China have agreed to form at least three new border-related mechanisms.
• An Expert Group under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC) to explore early harvest in boundary delimitation.
• A Working Group under the WMCC to advance effective border management in order to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas.
• General level mechanisms in Eastern and Middle Sectors, in addition to the existing general level mechanism in the Western Sector, and holding an early meeting of the general level mechanism in the Western Sector.
• The two sides also agreed to use the border management mechanisms at the diplomatic and military levels to carry forward the process of border management, and discuss de-escalation, beginning with the principles and modalities.
• Importantly, there is agreement on the need to take a political perspective of the overall bilateral relationshipwhile seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable framework for settlement of the boundary question.
• This aligns with India’s position that the border situation directly impacts bilateral ties.
• On the bilateral front, the two sides have agreed to resume direct flight connectivity at the earliest; facilitate visas to tourists, businesses, media and other visitors; reopen border trade through the designated trading points at Lipulekh Pass, Shipki La Pass, and Nathu La Pass; and facilitate trade and investment flows through concrete measures.
• On trans-border rivers cooperation, the Chinese side agreed to share hydrological information during emergency situations based on humanitarian considerations.

Addressing trust deficit

• The repeated Chinese incursions on the border — Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014, Doklam in 2017, and the ongoing border standoff — have impacted trust.
• China’s military cooperation with Pakistan was on display during Operation Sindoor, when the Chinese supplied weapons and live intelligence to the Pakistanis.
• India has concerns with regard to the mega dam that is being built on the Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra), which will have implications for lower riparian states.
• India is concerned at China’s export restrictions on rare earths,tunnel boring machines, and fertilisers, which are key to India’s development and food security.

Conclusion

If the new dual track strategy is to be durable, the onus is on Beijing to assuage New Delhi’s concerns.